I envision World War III to be more like the Cold War than a war like World War II.

There's going to be a war with Iran? when did this happen? why wasn't i informed?

I think they just sent the letters out today.

It can be done...but instead of a tour of 12-15 months...it would probably have to be for duration...like it was during the Second World War...or they could reinstitue the draft in short order as the draft boards are still active and all eighteen year olds have to still register for the draft.

I doubt that a land war is necessary as we have tremendous air power capability as well as Naval power. Air strikes and a Naval blockade of the Gulf would bring Iran to its knees in a reasonably short period of time. When all is said and done Iran's military capabilities compared to ours is insignificant.

Do you really think its going to be a full blown war, or just another Iraq and then decade+ of mess?

i wonder what part that does play.

I just posted the article, but IF we REALLY DID go to war with Iran, then I think all bets are off.

I do not believe it will be "like" any other war to date, and I have no idea why we would allow ourselves to be dragged into it.

In my opinion, it would be the dumbest war we could ever get involved in. :2 cents:

i'm not sure what the # is but there is a large % of troops who've been re-re-re-deployed, right? the military has even recently considered lowering deployment to 8 months.

but i hear what you are saying and agree, if shit hit the fan and we needed to we could increase troop #s etc. but seriously, i can't discount how much these guys weigh history, 2 long protracted wars + 1 is truly against the odds of history. maybe i'm giving too much credit to the top brass but usually those guys are the smartest guys in the room and they look for winnable outcomes/goals.

Yes...I know people that are on their fifth deployment and most have been deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan. One...a helicopter pilot...was just redeployed this month for his third tour in Iraq...and has served two tours in Afghanistan. His 20 years will be in before he finishes the current tour in Iraq and he as yet to decide if he is going to retire at 20 or go for 30.

Iraq and Afganistan did not need to be prolonged...our politicians for whatever their reasons decided to occupy the two countries and do nation building In both countries the military and governments were defeated in a matter of weeks...and victory should have been declared and our forces withdrawn.

There would be no need to engage in a land war in Iran...or to occupy the country...or to nation build. With air strikes and a Naval blockade they can be brought to thier knees in short thrift. That is not to say that our politicians...for whatever their reasons...would not once again engage in a prolonged affair.

After they bomb Iran in November we are looking at WW 3 unfortunately.

LOL the taliban control 70% of Afganistan after 9 years. Our military capabilities are AWESOME!

Whatever percentage they do...or do not control...is the fault of politicians micro managing the military...not the fault of the military.

Was Rumsfeld a politician, or part of the military, when he said Iraq would cost no more than $2 billion, and last maybe around 6 days?

just let me know when i can start tearing up ohio.

Rumsfeld was a civilian/politician...and part of the civilian micro management of the military...in addition to not being the sharpest knive in the drawer.

BTW...we defeated the Iraqi military and overthrew the government in 24 days...mission accomplished by our military...but for whatever the reasons the politicians decided to occupy the country and do nation building.

iran and iraq war lasted 10-11 years with a stalemate and you see what we did to iraq in short order...

our technology is far superior to any nation out there, but i dont think we would want a quick war..


.

It is an interesting development if true. If true it shows just how serious the Saudis are about stopping Iran from going nuclear...... as allowing Israel to stage an attack form their soil would be unprecedented...... to say the least. :2 cents:

The russians lost.

November? For the mid-terms? LOL, I'll give them a little more credit than that.

Don't know how that makes much sense. Iraq was fighting iran with our weapons.

can't wait, let's get everyone trained on how to use an automatic weapon ASAP ... mom too !

They were primarily fighting with soviet weapons...some French and...I think...some German weapons. With any military one has to have training/discipline/the will to fight...or the weapons are basically useless.

What do you believe? What is true, what is propaganda?

How can anyone believe ANYTHING anymore?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

i dont think they were given any kind of our latest technology..

also, that was a long time ago and our weaponry has grown leaps and bounds...

the US would decimate iran in a war just like we did in iraq...

and just like iraq, we will be stuck there playing police force for the next hundred years..





.

I would take a vacation at this place.

This is greatly offensive.

You have to understand two things about the American military.

1) ALL rules of engagement, policies and movement are determined by their civilian leaders. The military is only as good as the politicians allow them to be. Right now their hands are tied and unable to complete the task at hand. This has NOTHING to do with the ability of these brave men and women soldiers.

2) The US military is capable of handling any job. They are brave, well trained, willing and able. Any short comings come from politicians, not those in uniform.

You must understand the system. You can not point fingers at soldiers who's job is to OBEY ORDERS. However if you give them an order or a task, they will complete it with success so long as their hands are not tied, as they are now.

:1orglaugh nice backtrack.

how do you plan on killing guys who bunker in some of the most treacherous land on the planet? make a giant bulldozer and run over mountains?

you can drop 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x bombs and it wont make a dent in the landscape of these mountains.

the military is funded BY CIVILIANS, thus why you have civilian leaders directing it. without tax payer dollars you have no military. YOU must understand the system.

what if the job is not meant to be completed? how do you have a successful task that is not meant to be finished in the first place?

Excellent critique.

ya great critique!

military should have power over itself.

we all know how great military dictatorship turns out.

:1orglaugh

He did not say that and niether did I. His post was was in response to mayabong insinuating that our military is incompetent...and it is not. It is micro management by civilans that prolongs conflict...and is not the fault of the military.

the military is incompetent and that is why it needs to be controlled.

ok so who do you 2 suggest controls the military?

he was blaming its faults on the civilian leaders.

ok so who is going to do a better job of controlling them?

the military is a bunch of brainwashed kids. i feel really bad for them being used in their prime. god bless their souls i know they mean well. it is really sad though. they just do not know any better.

there is a reason why the military spends so much money going into small towns and poor areas. they make these kids feel incompetent in their own lives and convince them to fight for lies in the act of blind patriotism.

infact the military targets mostly what society would deem as incompetent people and convinces them they are somehow doing good.

Our politicians should decide where and when to engage our military...once they make the decision to engage our military...as General MacArthur said "their is no substitute for victory" and the military should be allowed to conduct the war as they see fit. Micro management by civilians and the political games they play increases the loss of life on all sides including collalteral lives. Left to their own devices the military will fight a brutal but short war...which ultimately saves lives...all around.

The rest of your post is pigshit.

no it is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110302528.html

"More than 44 percent of U.S. military recruits come from rural areas, Pentagon figures show. In contrast, 14 percent come from major cities."

there is a reason why the military targets these places figure it out. i dont make it up it is fact. they prefer under educated poor people who are easily controlled.

maybe with your post you will realize the military is just a political pawn and nothing else.

When I was in the military...every enlistee had a highschool diploma (GED's) were not allowed...every Senior NCO had to have an associate degree or the equivalent of an associate degree and many had full degrees. Every officer had to have a full degree and many had master's and PHD's. No one was allowed in that had any kind of a misdeameanor conviction let alone a felony conviction.

Because the politicians micro manage the military...and prolongs conflicts the military begins losing their cream and to fill the loss they have to reduce standards to get warm bodies in to fill the ranks. This happens in every prolonged conflict.

As a result of two...unecessarily prolonged conflicts the military...not only now accepts people with certain criminal convictions...and medical conditions...as well as people that do not even have a GED...and the age limit for enlistees has risen from 26 years of age to 42 and maybe even 46 years of age...and Senior NCO's are not required to have associate degrees or the equilency. Officers are still required to have a full degree...to the best of my knowledge.

So no it is not what the military prefers...it is what they have to do because of micro management by civilians.

we are not talking about when you were in the military. i live in the now.

ok so whether or not is has to do with politicians or civilians is not the point.

the point is currently the military is indeed incompetent. whether from their own actions or not does not change the fact that it indeed is. and the politicians want it this way.

again i will state they want poor undereducated people who are easily controlled. thus why they do the majority of recruiting in poor rural areas. this is indeed fact. now i put my own slight spin on it. but you did indeed agree with it as its current state NOW (education level needed to enlist) and the fact of where the recruiting is done.

they do indeed prefer it. because the military only prefers what the government prefers. they do not nor should not have a say. to make their own decisions is not their job. they serve the "will" of the politicians who were in turn elected to serve the "will" of the people. what they "prefer" does not exist. what they prefer is only what the politicians direct them to prefer as they see fit.

By the way I am speaking about the Army and Marine Corp having lower standards now...I am not aware if the Airforce or the Navy has had to lower their standards...I doubt it.

Once again your post is pigshit...you are now dismissed.

i can keep owning you if you want. :)

you cannot dismiss facts. well you can dismiss them from your own psyche but that would make you disillusional. which you clearly are.

Before we go to war there needs to be another false flag attack. Look for a dirty bomb to be set off in the USA and/or a USA ship that is off the coast of Iran to be "sunk" by Iran. I am thinking the sparks will begin to fly within the next few months.

In Fiscal Year 2008, only 83 percent of new Army recruits had a high school diploma (or at least 15 college credits), comparted with the Department of Defense (DOD) average of 92 percent.

This is 2010 so I suspect the 83 percent that have high school diplomas is a few points less.

No, not really. What the fuck do we need European deployments for? To stop the Russians? They are trying to join NATO, not attack it. The administrative stuff, the cooks - well, most of that is outsourced these days, even in a war zone such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

I understand that a large percentage of troops are dedicated to supply and logistics. However, we have two hundred thousand troops in a combat zone and that's only a fraction of the troops we have.

Your on crack. I went into the Marines in 1986 after dropping out of high school. (Since then I've graduated from college.) I don't believe there was ever a requirement to be a high school graduate. It's based on test scores, not a diploma.

well, it's not a matter of why we have euro deployments, rochard, my (the) point is there are euro deployments, there are homeland deployments, there are deployments across the globe. the logistics that support an invasion of iran are staggering- we don't have the resources available over the next weeks or months to support a u.s. invasion of iran without drawdowns elsewhere. and it's simply not a fact that the military supply chain is outsourced.


we don't need to stop the russians?

Something like this is unfortunately very likely.

I've made similar predictions myself.

wait, everyone's NOT trained yet?!?! wtf?!?!

Where is the bear jew?

Israel will bomb the iran nuclear sites within the next few months....there wont be any ground war because the army in iran wont show up....The people of iran want a revolution and are not willing to die for the current government....missles may fly and bombs may drop but you wont see a ground war in iran :2 cents:

I clump it all together politicans, generals, soldiers... that is the military. Its easy to say well if this wasn't like this or that wasn't like that, we'd be kicking ass. The taliban controls 70% of Afganistan. They probably would control more if we didn't pay them off LOL

First of all, Iran is HUGE, so it is doubtful anything will happen via "precision" bombings. They most likely have MANY underground nuclear research facilities.

http://www.norrispeery.com/images/map_of_iran.jpg

In response to an attack, Iran will instantly target all US and Israeli ships in the Persian Gulf, and maybe even shut down the gulf, causing our gas and power prices to skyrocket.

You also have to imagine Russia and China will not be very happy, and North Korea will feel even more pressure to do something pro-active, as it watches the second of the 3 "axis-of-evil" countries getting attacked.

Nothing good will come from going to war with Iran... no way!